Taxing the Rich

More

My new column for the FT looks again at the battle over the budget and argues that Obama and the Democrats are right that tax revenues need to rise, but wrong to focus so tightly on top marginal income-tax rates. I think the Democrats' heavy emphasis on this makes little sense in economic terms--the wealthiest Americans would be relatively unaffected by a higher tax rate on employment income--and I bet the political benefits are at least somewhat overstated.

Most of the electorate may approve of higher taxes on the rich - along with other measures. But they will notice if Democrats have nothing else to suggest; and they will worry if they think Democrats see heavier taxes on the rich, and possibly not-so-rich, as an end in itself. Mr Obama tries to avoid giving that impression, but his allies in Congress, who swoon every time he says "millionaires and billionaires", do not.

It worsens the problem that the president's line between the middle class (whose taxes he has promised not to raise) and what one Democratic party spokesman recently called the ultra-rich is a household income of $250,000. The figure is too low. True, less than 3 per cent of households make that much at any one time - but a police officer married to a civil servant could sneak into this category. Income varies during one's lifetime, so a far larger number have crossed the line, or will do, or hope to, during their peak earning years.

From an economic point of view, broadening the base and raising more revenue from a wider segment of the population would be better. (This could and should be done in a way that made average, as opposed to marginal, tax rates more progressive than now, even as it brought high marginal rates down.)

In terms of the politics, a center-left party advocating higher taxes on "the rich" ought to define that term a bit more narrowly, I'd say. And it would also be wise to express (even if it has to fake it) reluctance to put taxes up for anyone. "We are doing this because it is necessary, not because we want to, and not because the rich have it coming." To imply otherwise may alarm the top end of the middle class, and anybody who aspires to join it. In the US, where people strive to get on, this could be a big mistake.  

Jump to comments
Presented by

Clive Crook is a senior editor of The Atlantic and a columnist for Bloomberg View. He was the Washington columnist for the Financial Times, and before that worked at The Economist for more than 20 years, including 11 years as deputy editor. Crook writes about the intersection of politics and economics. More

Crook writes about the intersection of politics and economics.

Get Today's Top Stories in Your Inbox (preview)

What Do You See When You Look in the Mirror?

In a series of candid video interviews, women talk about self-image, self-judgement, and what it means to love their bodies


Elsewhere on the web

Join the Discussion

After you comment, click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register. blog comments powered by Disqus

Video

Adventures in Legal Weed

Colorado is now well into its first year as the first state to legalize recreational marijuana. How's it going? James Hamblin visits Aspen.

Video

What Makes a Story Great?

The storytellers behind House of CardsandThis American Life reflect on the creative process.

Video

Tracing Sriracha's Origin to Thailand

Ever wonder how the wildly popular hot sauce got its name? It all started in Si Racha.

Video

Where Confiscated Wildlife Ends Up

A government facility outside of Denver houses more than a million products of the illegal wildlife trade, from tigers and bears to bald eagles.

Video

Is Wine Healthy?

James Hamblin prepares to impress his date with knowledge about the health benefits of wine.

Video

The World's Largest Balloon Festival

Nine days, more than 700 balloons, and a whole lot of hot air

Writers

Up
Down

More in Politics

Just In